D&D 5E Critical Hits Appears to be Next in D&D Archive

[The Little Raven]

Exactly. It could mean either thing.

I'd like the writing to be as clear and crisp as poissible from the start.

Well, one could reasonably assume it's the latter, rather than the former, since designing monsters to take into account use of magic items seems rather wonky in a book that places gnolls alongside owlbears, since it'd be silly if they had to note in all the non-magic using creatures that certain liberties had to be taken to balance them with the magic using ones.

 

[Incenjucar]

I find myself wondering about whether monsters or NPCs with classes will crit as per normal...

 

[frankthedm]

The whole concept of "nerf" is about making changes within the current system that diminish the power of an existing power/ability/spell/character... so, if it was a change to 3e that reduced powered, it would be a nerf. When it's a different game, then it's a "difference of scale," not nerf.

It is still a nerf when the systems are notably built on one another, like the Nerfing of the Magnum in Halo 2.

To say nothing off the halo 2's heavier reliance on shields and diminished [and invisible] health bar :\ forcing the player to rely more on the shields that the alien's weaponry is best at taking down. Par for the course though for a Microsoft 'upgrade'...

 

[The Little Raven]

It is still a nerf when the systems are notably built on one another, like the Nerfing of the Magnum in Halo 2.

Bad example, as this is a difference in design (and again, doesn't address the fact that a nerf is a change to an existing game). The Halo 1 pistol was designed for long-distance use as well as close-combat, since the only other effect long-range weapon was the sniper rifle. In Halo 2, the battle-rifle filled that roll, thus the pistol was made more powerful as a close-range weapon. In terms of actual damage, Halo 2's pistol did more damage, but had a reduced range and no scope feature... but as an off-hand weapon, it had no match.

So, if Halo 1 was patched and the gun was changed into the Halo 2 version, that could be considered a nerf (as it removes one of two effective long-distance weapons), but when a new game does a new design... yeah.. it's not.

To say nothing off the halo 2's heavier reliance on shields and diminished [and invisible] health bar :\ forcing the player to rely more on the shields the alien's weaponry is best at taking down.

Which is why you're able to carry two weapons, to provide you with more tactical choice. Even here, you demonstrate that this is all "difference in scale," rather than "nerf." Nerf is reducing the damage coefficient for Improved Fireball, because it has a faster cast time, despite no other abilities in WoW suffering from that "damage tax." It's not making things in the second game of a series different from the first.

Par for the course though for a Microsoft 'upgrade'...

The only involvement Microsoft had in the development of the Halo games, after the wholesale purchase of Bungie, was demanding Xbox exclusivity and giving them tons of funding. This whole concept that most parent companies in the game industry try to meddle with a successful developer's design has little evidence, and most developers (including the one I work for) would vehemently deny it.

 

[The Little Raven]

I find myself wondering about whether monsters or NPCs with classes will crit as per normal...

Why? The only indication that things aren't the same for PCs/monsters is the magic item crit bonus section.

 

[Incenjucar]

Why? The only indication that things aren't the same for PCs/monsters is the magic item crit bonus section.

And... that isn't enough?

Monsters can use the same items and, I assume, many can use the same classes as PCs.

I'm wondering about the distinction that excuses the difference in crits.

 

[Sitara]

Well the nat 20 always crits doesn't surprise me at all, since being a SAGA veteren I knew it would be in.

However...I am somewhat shocked as to the execution of damage. I personally prefer SAGA's mathod of doubling ALL dmage dice (including the ones from modifiers and powers!) for some truly exceptional crits that make crits truly an Event to remember.

Sure it causes spikes, but in a fiddled and stabilised system, there should be ONE element that is totally unpredicatable and causes spikes and shockwaves.

So while this is better than 3E, I still prefer SAGA's over this. 4E crits are just too...bland.


Also please note, interestingly 4E crits appear to end up doing far MORE damage on average than 3E crits because:

-They occur more often for both pc's and npc's/monsters(no confirmation roll)

-They do more damage in tof themselves, since damage dice are maximized. in 3E, doubling or teipling hardly mattered i fyou rolled really low.

-There appears to be a buttload of ways to enhance damage, from powers to talents, feats and weapon type.

 

[Voss]

Well the nat 20 always crits doesn't surprise me at all, since being a SAGA veteren I knew it would be in.

However...I am somewhat shocked as to the execution of damage. I personally prefer SAGA's mathod of doubling ALL dmage dice (including the ones from modifiers and powers!) for some truly exceptional crits that make crits truly an Event to remember.

Sure it causes spikes, but in a fiddled and stabilised system, there should be ONE element that is totally unpredicatable and causes spikes and shockwaves.

So while this is better than 3E, I still prefer SAGA's over this. 4E crits are just too...bland.

But with the melee emphasis and all the other potential damage bonuses lurking around, that style of crit would break them game, even more than it does in Saga. It would be orcs with greataxes all over again.

Also please note, interestingly 4E crits appear to end up doing far MORE damage on average than 3E crits because:

-They occur more often for both pc's and npc's/monsters(no confirmation roll)

-They do more damage in tof themselves, since damage dice are maximized. in 3E, doubling or teipling hardly mattered i fyou rolled really low.

the amount rolled didn't matter. To exploit the crit system in 3e you tacked on damage bonuses strength, magic items, buffs, etc. Even if he rolls the minimum, a first level halforc barbarian can break 50 damage with a scythe a first level. Properly buffed, by 4th level, he can break a 100.

But really, the damage itself is a little lower. You can draw up some estimates with a 4th level paladin using safeguard smite (or not) with a +1 frost war pick.
Compare it to a 4th level paladin criting on a smite with a pick, battle axe and longsword. Based on the info we have, it comes in average somewhere between a x2 and x3 crit, leaning more toward the x2.

-There appears to be a buttload of ways to enhance damage, from powers to talents, feats and weapon type.

which is unfortunate, because too many can break back out into exploding damage rolls that made crits so ridiculous. Its just applied differently.

 

[The Little Raven]

And... that isn't enough?

Monsters can use the same items and, I assume, many can use the same classes as PCs.

I'm wondering about the distinction that excuses the difference in crits.

I think it might be more of a case that monsters, for the most part, aren't built with magical weapons from the normal player magical item system. I would assume that unless they wield a symbolic weapon that is unique to that creature (githyank silver swords, death knight sword, etc), they would be given mundane/natural weapons as part of their normal makeup as an encounter. It isn't that you can't place a +1 frost greataxe in an orc's hands and give him that +1d6 bonus on crits, it's that he isn't assumed to have it in the Monster Manual.

Remember, monsters are being built to be encounters, not player characters. Also, the original point was you feared that monsters/NPCs could not get a crit at all. I think when they talked about crits being better for monsters, since they're rolling more often, they would have specifically pointed out removing them entirely from monsters if they were doing that. They didn't.

 

[Spatula]

Yeah... because it is. That's like winning a prize, then having it revoked a moment later.

It's like winning a prize, and then maybe winning an even bigger prize a moment later.

And you're ignoring things from the article, like magic weapons dealing +1d6 damage on a crit

Whee, +3 dmg, exciting.

and normal weapons (like the war pick) that deal additional damage on a crit. Then, of course, there's also probably abilities that get additional benefits from crits (aside from maximized damage). And let's not forget the possibility of feats that make your crits even cooler.

Yes, let's not forget your pure speculation regarding unpublished rules that may or may not actually exist.